DILEEP Vs. AJITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.760/2000. The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.5.2010, by which his petition for divorce had been dismissed by the Family Court.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in the original petition unless otherwise stated: The petitioner married the respondent on 19.4.2000 as per the Hindu religious custom and ceremonies. It is his case that the behaviour of the respondent herein at the time of marriage and on subsequent days were not proper. She was found moody and melancholic. She was not giving proper answer to his questions. She was staying idle in the house and told him that she is afraid of fire and water. She was also not interested in having sex. On 15.5.2000 the couple went to the house of the respondent. On that night the respondent was found talking incoherently. Next day morning it was found that she was crying aloud and when the petitioner asked her why, she told that she was frightened. The petitioner felt that her relatives were suppressing certain facts from him. Then they returned to the matrimonial home. But there was no change in the moody behaviour of the respondent and it only aggravated. Though the petitioner tried to take her to a hospital, she was not co-operative. Subsequently, the respondent became pregnant and on 22.8.2000 when they were taking rest, the petitioner heard the respondent screaming. She was found lying on the ground and foam and froth were found coming from her mouth. On the same day evening also the same episode occurred. The parents of the petitioner were informed. He alleged that on 24.8.2000 and 28.8.2000 also there was attack of epilepsy and the respondent fell down. When she was asked about the disease she told that she was suffering from epilepsy from childhood and she was under treatment. She told that she married the petitioner on account of compulsion of her relatives. The parents of the respondent apologized for not having mentioned about the epilepsy prior to the marriage. The respondent was taken to her house. Alleging that the disease of epilepsy was not informed prior to the marriage, the petitioner sought for divorce on the ground that the marriage is not valid and sought to declare the marriage as void.

(3.) The respondent denied the allegations. Though she admitted that she suffered epilepsy after the marriage, according to her prior to the marriage there was no such instance. It is also submitted that the epilepsy had occurred during pregnancy and after the delivery of the child there is no problem. The above case was heard along with two other cases between the parties. Common evidence was taken.